There is an interesting article on the First Things blog (a great magazine for those unfamiliar on politics, orthodoxy within the Judeo-Christian traditions, law, bioethics, and many other topics) which discusses the dilemma facing mainline Protestantism (http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2009/09/the-agony-of-mainline-protestantism) and the author proposes two novel solutions. The first is to flee to the safety and comfort of the 'Mother Church' as he put it, an undertaking that many people I personally know have taken to either the Roman or Orthodox Church's. An undertaking I myself have followed having drifted out of the Catholichism of my youth into evangelical Christianity and United Methodism for a time only to find myself back in the church of my birth and baptism (possibly because of the Holy Spirit). Though the other solution is also an interesting one, one that many, including the author, finds flaws in but one that examines some merit.
The article begins by asking a question that could apply to any member of the Protestant mainline from an Episcopalian, to a Methodist, to a Lutheran (the article focuses on them) to a Congregationalist, etc. Any mainline denomination that is fracturing amidst calls for blessing homosexual unions within the realm of the church. "What is the vocation of the faithful amidst a great deal of confusion and some outright false teaching?"
The article answers that it puts faithful Lutherans into a particular bind, Scripture commands us to listen to the wisdom and advice of our elders, particularly Church elders, but what happens when that command contradicts more basic tenants of the faith? What happens when those same 'wise' leaders begin to undermine the moral teachings and authority that form the foundation of the Church? The article goes on to propose both the 'Roman' solution, a solution I favored, returning to a Church that will constantly be a bedrock of sense, tradition, authority, and Truth (Oh yeah with a capital T!) against the insanity of modernity. Or the 'orthodox soldier' solution, or essentially to be a soldier of Christ and the Word of God first and a 'good lutheran' second. While 'good Lutherans' should listen to their pastors and bishops 'orthodox soldiers' should instead chastise them as Paul chastised the leaders of the Corinthian church when they stray from the teaching of the Gospel.
The author of this article, himself a Roman convert, still disfavors this as ultimately a futile fight that either leads to more church infighting and schism amongst the mainline branches, a process he condemns ironically using a quote of Luther's (prior to his Roman separation) "We, who are bearing the burdens and truly intolerable abominations of the Roman Curia-are we too fleeing and seceding on this account? Perish the thought! Perish the thought!”, or that leads ultimately to the 'orthodox soldier' being perpetually ashamed and dismissive of his own church leadership,
as he finds himself wiser than them. A process one could easily surmise as leading down a path that altogether removes the individual Christian from 'the church' as an active participant and member if he is so alienated from the leadership.
I have of course have my own opinions about this which I have debated with my Protestant girlfriend and a good friend of mine currently in a Methodist divinity school. It seems though that the tragedy of good Christians being alienated by leaders within their own churches who are abandoning the call and wisdom of Christ over a host of issues from the protection of the unborn to the preservation of traditional marriage (to be clear within the Church, we are not talking about state sanctioned same sex union which in my view do not effect the Christian) will continue as long as those churches are governed by those forces seeking conciliation with modernity instead of obedience to Christ. The hope is either that the 'orthodox soldiers' wrest control through the internal mechanisms of their own churches, or that the leadership will learn to become as wise as its laity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting article. The appeal to Rome because of theological dispute with one's ecclesial leadership does seem a bit weak to me, however. Any traditional Protestant would have just as many issues with Rome as with Mainline liberalism, albeit issues of a much different sort.
ReplyDeleteI think one can make a general argument, as I believe I have with you in the past, that the trend of Protestantism in general is to emphasize the primacy of the individuals relationship to God which one could also argue is scripturally sound and preferred to the organized hierarchy of Rome, but it can lead to a plethora of individualized theological interpretations and a potential 'watering down' of the truth. I think the fact that the schism once it started didn't stop with Lutheranism but continued to the point where there are thousands of Protestant denominations is somewhat proof that individuals when given the power to determine what is and isn't truth within the realm of faith, especially when freed from the rules and doctrines of a more structured hierarchy and organization, will waver between completely different competing ideas of what 'the truth' is. So I think the author and other protestant-Roman converts have made a compelling case, at least to me, that the bedrock of unchanging tradition and devotion to Truth within the Roman hierarchy which is intentionally designed to mirror the primacy of the One Authority (that being Christ) is preferable to the debates, committees, and modernizing tendencies of those within some protestant denominations. it is not just the mainline either, evangelicals especially in 'seeker' churches tend to water down aspects of the theology to appeal to a broader number of people and advance a broader agenda which can fall into the heresy of 'the gospel of wealth' or 'the self-help gospel' as opposed to 'the Gospel of Truth'. Furthermore leaving a community that is so fractured and entering into one that is united, with the same mass wherever you go, same rituals, same practices, and the uniform living communion of Christ on Earth, can be a relief for those orthodox Protestants.
ReplyDeleteThat said, at the end of the day I think leaving protestantism for Rome solely because of disagreements with one's own church leadership regarding orthodoxy is a horrible reason to convert. It takes a profound relationship with the Holy Spirit, recognition of the full presence of His Body in the bread and the healing power it has, recognizing saintly and Marian miracles, basically a whole lot of things even orthodox Protestants might not necessarily want to ascribe to for varying reasons.
I think for you, and for orthodox Protestants in general it is better to keep fighting the good fight within your denominations to ensure that the true Gospel prospers within all of Christianity-one should only come over to Rome if one is willing to fully embrace it.
To be clear my own turn back towards Rome had a lot more to do with rediscovering the love I once had for the old Church and its practices, embracing the bread as a sustaining Body and not just a presence, the healing power of confession, etc. than it did with disagreement with the Mainline. It was a profound feeling not of having finally found my true home but of having never left it in the first place. And I don't think that would be the case for most Protestants.